What do you think?
Rate this book
God is Open: Examining the Open Theism of the Biblical Authors
The Bible was written by over 35 authors over the course of several millennia. What did these authors believe about God? Is Yahweh of the Bible the same God envisioned by modern Christianity? This book uses critical thinking skills to treat each author independently in order to reveal their individualized concepts of God. Did they believe in the Negative Attributes (aseity, simplicity, necessity, immutability, impassibility, eternity, omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, etc.)? • Does God sometimes regret His own actions? • Does Genesis 1 describe God creating the universe from nothing? • Does God punish innocent people to solve existential questions? • Does God crowdsource ideas to accomplish His goals? • Does God care about how Pagans view Him? • Did Jesus have different desires than God? • Is God’s judgment based on His emotional state? • Is Satan a character in the Old Testament? Explore these questions and more as the context of 40 Biblical excerpts are examined.
- GenresChristianity
468 pages, Kindle Edition
Published February 6, 2017
25 people are currently reading
17 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
May 29, 2025
This is the best biblical theology book Ive ever read. What is a biblical theology? Imagine you have never heard anything about God, were stuck on an island, and all you had was a bible. As you finish reading it for the 100th time, what view of God would you have formed from the text? (ie without the help of philosophers, tradition and theologians) Likely a personal God, who changes his mind, is emotional and interacts dynamically with humans. Likely not the immutable, timeless, omniscient etc God of the pagan philosophers. The traditional theology we mainly accept (called negative theology) in the modern church has built an understanding of God far from the understanding of the biblical narrators of old. Largely influenced by Plato.
Does this mean the current understanding of God is wrong? No. But traditional theists cant say that open theism is wrong and a heresy, because that view cannot be defended by scripture. As the author states 'If too great a meaning is given to too little of a phrase, this might build an unstable theology.'
Some further quotes to help understand what this masterpiece is all about:
"How does an observer objectively pick which proof texts do not have a straightforward meaning and which ones do? For the Calvinist, how does one argue that Malachi 3:6² means God is immutable while at the same time arguing that Genesis 6:6³ helps the reader understand an eternal plan of God? Is it not just as possible (or more so) that Malachi 3:6 helps the reader understand God’s commitment to Israel and Genesis 6:6 is absolute?"
"There are close relations between Negative Theology and the Dignum Deo mindset. Negative Theologians often reason from a Dignum Deo presumption. Dignum Deo theology is theology derived from what attributes God “should” have. Literally translated, Dignum Deo is “that which is fitting of God”. In this theological construct, people determine through philosophy what attributes God must have in order to be God and then they attribute those attributes to God."
"Negative Theologians have a problem. Not only does Moses describe God’s anger and repentance in Exodus 32 and Deuteronomy 9, but Ezekiel 20 attributes God’s change to the same reasons (in the voice of Yahweh). Psalms 106 further recognizes that Moses changed God’s mind, a change which would not have happened without Moses’ actions. These multiple perspectives reinforce the face value of what is happening in the Exodus 32 text. To claim that this text had hidden Negative Theology in mind is not a rational position."
"Far from being timeless and immutable, God in the Hebrew Bible is active, engaged, in constant dialogue with his people, calling, urging, warning, challenging and forgiving. When Malachi says in the name of God, ‘I the Lord do not change’ (Malachi 3:6), he is not speaking about his essence as pure being, the unmoved mover, but about his moral commitments. God keeps his promises even when his children break theirs."
"The narratives about Yahweh in the Old Testament prevent Negative Theology from even being an assumption. Yahweh regrets His own actions. Yahweh asks for the advice of others (and regularly holds council with a group of advisors). Yahweh even delegates responsibilities. Yahweh tests people to know what they will do. Yahweh’s prophets fail more often than succeed. And Yahweh is continually thwarted and enraged by His own chosen people."
This is such a great book. I'm not sure why it's not more popular. I think people are concerned that if they think about God in a way where he isn't outside time, or that he doesnt know every detail about the future, then they are not thinking about him highly enough, and are being irreverant. This is not the case though, you can believe in an open God and still maintain his sovereignty. In fact, I think it increases it. At the very least you form a much more personal, interactive and loving God.
Does this mean the current understanding of God is wrong? No. But traditional theists cant say that open theism is wrong and a heresy, because that view cannot be defended by scripture. As the author states 'If too great a meaning is given to too little of a phrase, this might build an unstable theology.'
Some further quotes to help understand what this masterpiece is all about:
"How does an observer objectively pick which proof texts do not have a straightforward meaning and which ones do? For the Calvinist, how does one argue that Malachi 3:6² means God is immutable while at the same time arguing that Genesis 6:6³ helps the reader understand an eternal plan of God? Is it not just as possible (or more so) that Malachi 3:6 helps the reader understand God’s commitment to Israel and Genesis 6:6 is absolute?"
"There are close relations between Negative Theology and the Dignum Deo mindset. Negative Theologians often reason from a Dignum Deo presumption. Dignum Deo theology is theology derived from what attributes God “should” have. Literally translated, Dignum Deo is “that which is fitting of God”. In this theological construct, people determine through philosophy what attributes God must have in order to be God and then they attribute those attributes to God."
"Negative Theologians have a problem. Not only does Moses describe God’s anger and repentance in Exodus 32 and Deuteronomy 9, but Ezekiel 20 attributes God’s change to the same reasons (in the voice of Yahweh). Psalms 106 further recognizes that Moses changed God’s mind, a change which would not have happened without Moses’ actions. These multiple perspectives reinforce the face value of what is happening in the Exodus 32 text. To claim that this text had hidden Negative Theology in mind is not a rational position."
"Far from being timeless and immutable, God in the Hebrew Bible is active, engaged, in constant dialogue with his people, calling, urging, warning, challenging and forgiving. When Malachi says in the name of God, ‘I the Lord do not change’ (Malachi 3:6), he is not speaking about his essence as pure being, the unmoved mover, but about his moral commitments. God keeps his promises even when his children break theirs."
"The narratives about Yahweh in the Old Testament prevent Negative Theology from even being an assumption. Yahweh regrets His own actions. Yahweh asks for the advice of others (and regularly holds council with a group of advisors). Yahweh even delegates responsibilities. Yahweh tests people to know what they will do. Yahweh’s prophets fail more often than succeed. And Yahweh is continually thwarted and enraged by His own chosen people."
This is such a great book. I'm not sure why it's not more popular. I think people are concerned that if they think about God in a way where he isn't outside time, or that he doesnt know every detail about the future, then they are not thinking about him highly enough, and are being irreverant. This is not the case though, you can believe in an open God and still maintain his sovereignty. In fact, I think it increases it. At the very least you form a much more personal, interactive and loving God.
January 24, 2018
Within Christianity for the last few decades, there has been a debate raging between conservative theologians (and others) who interpret the ancient biblical texts through the lens of Greek philosophy, imposing a Greek philosophical set of characteristics on the god of the Bible (Classical Theism), and other theologians who promote a view commonly called Open Theism.
The Classical Theists argue that the Bible teaches that the Judeo-Christian God has characteristics like omniscience (all-knowing), omnipotence (all-powerful), omnipresence (everywhere at the same time), and so on. The Open Theists argue that these characterisations of God are not biblical. Specifically, they suggest that the future is partly open to God because God doesn't know what choices will be made by humans who have free will. While the characteristic of omniscience seems to be the focus of Open Theist critique of Classical Theism, all of the "omni" characteristics are implicated.
In God is Open, Fisher examines every section of the Old and New Testaments of the Bible to inductively determine what the ancient biblical authors believed about the God they were telling stories about. As it turns out, there is no evidence within the texts that support the Classical Theists' descriptions of God. If Classical theologians, particularly evangelical conservative theologians, were openminded enough to look at the evidence objectively, it would revolutionise their concept of God.
Before Fisher lays out his examination of the biblical texts, he lays out the different theistic approaches then tackles some significant issues related to biblical interpretation (hermeneutics). In particular, he discusses the role that critical thinking, reading comprehension, context, metaphors/analogies, and some other reading and comprehension skills that are needed to correctly interpret the ancient texts (or any text, for that matter). After this, he carefully explores around 40 passages of the Bible and, using the principles he has previously discussed, teases out the perspective of the ancient biblical writers.
The book concludes with a discussion of the differences between Hebrew and Greek thought and the way that Classical theologians have produced numerous systematic theologies that use Greek philosophical presuppositions to skew the reading of the texts. Fisher then finishes with a list of characteristics of God derived from his textual analysis.
The evidence is overwhelming. If Christians were persuaded by Fisher's analysis, it would revolutionise Christian views of the biblical God, and much of the (il)logical nonsense that arises from reading Greek philosophy into the text would disappear. It would radically change believers' relationship to God (whatever that means). I'd suggest that every Christian scholar and believer read this book. It may also be of interest to non-believers who raise issues and objections about the character of God presented by most Christians. Of course, Fisher is writing from a Christian perspective, so assumes the existence of the Judeo-Christian God. If readers are not believers, then one would need to suspend disbelief while reading. But even for non-believers who are interested in Christian theology or biblical studies will benefit from a read. The material on critical thinking and reading comprehension of texts is worth reading on its own.
The Classical Theists argue that the Bible teaches that the Judeo-Christian God has characteristics like omniscience (all-knowing), omnipotence (all-powerful), omnipresence (everywhere at the same time), and so on. The Open Theists argue that these characterisations of God are not biblical. Specifically, they suggest that the future is partly open to God because God doesn't know what choices will be made by humans who have free will. While the characteristic of omniscience seems to be the focus of Open Theist critique of Classical Theism, all of the "omni" characteristics are implicated.
In God is Open, Fisher examines every section of the Old and New Testaments of the Bible to inductively determine what the ancient biblical authors believed about the God they were telling stories about. As it turns out, there is no evidence within the texts that support the Classical Theists' descriptions of God. If Classical theologians, particularly evangelical conservative theologians, were openminded enough to look at the evidence objectively, it would revolutionise their concept of God.
Before Fisher lays out his examination of the biblical texts, he lays out the different theistic approaches then tackles some significant issues related to biblical interpretation (hermeneutics). In particular, he discusses the role that critical thinking, reading comprehension, context, metaphors/analogies, and some other reading and comprehension skills that are needed to correctly interpret the ancient texts (or any text, for that matter). After this, he carefully explores around 40 passages of the Bible and, using the principles he has previously discussed, teases out the perspective of the ancient biblical writers.
The book concludes with a discussion of the differences between Hebrew and Greek thought and the way that Classical theologians have produced numerous systematic theologies that use Greek philosophical presuppositions to skew the reading of the texts. Fisher then finishes with a list of characteristics of God derived from his textual analysis.
The evidence is overwhelming. If Christians were persuaded by Fisher's analysis, it would revolutionise Christian views of the biblical God, and much of the (il)logical nonsense that arises from reading Greek philosophy into the text would disappear. It would radically change believers' relationship to God (whatever that means). I'd suggest that every Christian scholar and believer read this book. It may also be of interest to non-believers who raise issues and objections about the character of God presented by most Christians. Of course, Fisher is writing from a Christian perspective, so assumes the existence of the Judeo-Christian God. If readers are not believers, then one would need to suspend disbelief while reading. But even for non-believers who are interested in Christian theology or biblical studies will benefit from a read. The material on critical thinking and reading comprehension of texts is worth reading on its own.
May 2, 2025
A very very interesting read on Open theism, which has made me wanna do some more reading.
The author goes through all the times that it seems that God is not omnipotent, omniscient, immutable (as well as other attributes) and gives reasons why.
If God knows the beginning from the end, why is he sad when Adam and Eve sin if he already knew it was going to happen.
Why does he seem to not know what is going on at sodom and Gomorrah If he is omnipresent?
Why is he shocked when Israel keep on rejecting him ?
And many more examples.
This is the idea of open theism - essentially God doesn’t know what is going to happen tomorrow.
The Author starts off with discussing platonic thought and how it has influenced HOW we read the text. He argues that if we read the text without these platonic ideas in mind would we come up with the same ideas ? Do the authors believe those things about God or do the authors of scripture of a God with different attributes?
I liked his discussion on the difference between what the text is saying vs the attributes Plato invented, as the attributes from the texts are more personal than omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence etc.
The author then moves onto many examples of where and how God changes his mind, all through the Bible from
Genesis to revelation. It is separated into reading comprehension, Pentateuch, history, psalms, prophets and New Testament.
Now I’m onto the next one in the God is open series.
The author goes through all the times that it seems that God is not omnipotent, omniscient, immutable (as well as other attributes) and gives reasons why.
If God knows the beginning from the end, why is he sad when Adam and Eve sin if he already knew it was going to happen.
Why does he seem to not know what is going on at sodom and Gomorrah If he is omnipresent?
Why is he shocked when Israel keep on rejecting him ?
And many more examples.
This is the idea of open theism - essentially God doesn’t know what is going to happen tomorrow.
The Author starts off with discussing platonic thought and how it has influenced HOW we read the text. He argues that if we read the text without these platonic ideas in mind would we come up with the same ideas ? Do the authors believe those things about God or do the authors of scripture of a God with different attributes?
I liked his discussion on the difference between what the text is saying vs the attributes Plato invented, as the attributes from the texts are more personal than omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence etc.
The author then moves onto many examples of where and how God changes his mind, all through the Bible from
Genesis to revelation. It is separated into reading comprehension, Pentateuch, history, psalms, prophets and New Testament.
Now I’m onto the next one in the God is open series.
April 10, 2021
Rare is the book that you long to pick up again and keep reading to the end. This is that book. Reminding the reader that it is okay and even a good thing to use your reading comprehension skills when coming to the Bible, the author lets the biblical authors speak for themselves as to how we can best understand God’s message and His character. This biblical journey is refreshingly free of the stodgy non-biblical ideas so many Christian leaders bring to Christianity. For anyone wanting to know God and understand His word accurately God Is Open is highly recommended!
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews